The duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 as passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019 (with I.A. No. 6052 of 2020), whereby the High Court, after taking note of the settlement between the parties, who have resolved their marital discord and are leading a happy conjugal life, has confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') while reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

3. The only question requiring determination in the present appeal is as to whether the High Court, even after taking note of the settlement of the parties resolving their marital disputes, has erred in not setting aside the order of conviction altogether. Having regard to the short question involved, dilation on all the factual aspects is not necessary and only a brief reference for the background would suffice.

4. The appellant joined Indian Army as Naik on 12.09.2005. The appellant and the respondent No. 2 were married on 25.05.2013. Certain disputes having arisen, the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR bearing No. 204 of 2014 at Police Station, Sisai against the appellant and his family members with the allegations of demand of dowry, mental and physical torture etc. On 26.11.2014, the chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 417, 34 IPC against the accused persons and charges were framed accordingly. After trial in GR Case No. 904 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gumla, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the other accused persons of the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 417, 34 IPC. Except the appellant, all other accused persons were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 but, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three years.

5. The appeal preferred by the appellant, being Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019, was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Gumla on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court, being Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019. While the said revision petition was pending, two significant events took place. The first had been sanction of competent authority for dismissal of the appellant from his military service w.e.f. 14.07.2020 for having been convicted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In the second relevant event, on 24.11.2020, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 submitted a joint application before the High Court, inter alia, stating that with the intervention and advice of family members, common relatives and friends, they had entered into settlement and resolved all their disputes. It was submitted that upon the appellant approaching his wife for settlement with assurance to keep her with full honour and dignity, the proposal was accepted by the wife (respondent No. 2) with some conditions, while also undertaking to discharge her matrimonial duties. It was submitted that the parties were residing together with love and affection and with no dispute between them. It was, therefore, jointly prayed that since the dispute was a family dispute that arose due to miscommunication and misunderstanding, now the revision petition may be disposed of in view of the changed circumstances and the family status of the parties. This application was registered as I.A. No. 6052 of 2020.

6. The High Court took up the matter for consideration on 17.02.2021 and, after taking note of the submissions of the parties that they had resolved the marital discord and were residing together while enjoying a happy conjugal life, indeed observed that continuance of the proceedings might lead to disharmony but then, merely ordered modification of sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant while affirming his conviction. The H